MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300408145 · doi:10.33137/rr.v39i4.8929

Lorenzo de' Medici and the Art of Magnificence

2003· article· en· W4300408145 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
F. W. Kent, Dennis Romano

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Like his grandfather Cosimo il Vecchio, Lorenzo de' Medici, known as il Magnifico, is an endless source of fascination and study for historians and art historians alike.The dilemma the Medici family faced throughout the Quattrocento was how to assert their pre-eminence in Florence without unduly offending the city's republican sensibilities.Central to all their enterprises was the mobilization of a vast network of kin, friends, and neighbours; and the painters, sculptors, architects, and writers who constituted one part of this clientele produced a massive body of work which celebrated the family and advanced the Medici cause.As F. W. Kent observes in his introductory chapter, "the myth of Lorenzo de' Medici" as the "wise and munificent statesman" was accepted unquestioningly until the 1960s when it came under attack from a group of revisionists who created a "contra-myth" by arguing that Lorenzo's patronage of contemporary artists was really quite meagre and that the lionization of Lorenzo was little more than "humanist rhetorical exaggeration, or amplificatio, and partisan deference" (p.3).In the flurry of scholarly work produced in the 1990s to commemorate the five-hundredth anniversary of Lorenzo's death, the contramyth itself came under attack, although, as Kent observes, the effort "to recreate the superman described in the Renaissance rhetoric," often on the basis of very shaky evidence, is "little short of nauseating" (p.4).In this book, which the author describes as "a historian's contribution to the art-historical debate on Lorenzo de' Medici and the visual arts" (p.xi), Kent seeks to restore Lorenzo's reputation as a discerning and active patron of the arts, without provoking a "new mythic explosion" (p.5).The result is a rich and rewarding study which offers a sympathetic biographical portrait of Lorenzo.For those who are not specialists in Florentine history, Kent's study offers something else: it provides a model for thinking about the various activities which constituted Renaissance patronage and for discerning the multiple objectives of patrons.As regards Lorenzo, the picture that emerges from Kent's book is of a man forever chasing after the image and achievements of his grandfather.Raised in the palace built by Cosimo and surrounded by precious things, Lorenzo early on developed a discerning eye and a deep appreciation of luxurious objects."Opulent beauty," according to Kent, "was his birthright" (p.19).A trip to Naples in 1466 sparked his lifelong interest in antiquities.But Lorenzo also adopted at an early age another family tradition-that of serving on various opere or works' committees, including two stints as one of the city's Canal Officials, a board of men expert in matters both hydraulic and military.Service with this body gave the young Lorenzo a deep understanding of military architecture.Kent notes as well Lorenzo's efforts as a poet and concludes that he "was a genuine intellectual with broad yet educated and discriminating tastes" (p.42).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207